*The Council passed a motion to have the General Education Committee conduct an impact
study on the new General Education proposal. An interim report will be provided to the
Council at some point during Fall semester, and a revised General Education proposal will
be presented to the Council by semester's end.

*Chancellor Bill Stacy has pledged $150,000 for a "technological innovation
fund" to meet the technological needs of individual faculty members.

Professors Jim Hiestand and Jim Stroud moved and seconded approval of the minutes, and
the minutes were approved as written.

Committee Reports

Executive Committee Report

President Ezell welcomed Chancellor Bill Stacy to his first Faculty Council Meeting. He
informed the Chancellor that the administration implements automatically any action passed
by the Council. Chancellor Stacy acknowledged this helpful protocol tip. President Ezell
then welcomed new members of the Council, and had them introduce themselves. He asked
Professors Farhad Raiszadeh and Jim Avery to hold elections, after the Faculty Meeting on
September 9, for Council representatives from the School of Business Administration and
the College of Education and Applied Professional Studies respectively. President Ezell
also reported that the Board of Trustees had passed UTC's MS Degree in Athletic Training.

Committee on Committees

Committee on Committees Chair Verbie Prevost indicated that a replacement was needed
for Professor Oralia Preble-Niemi on the Committee on Committees. (Professor Prebel-Niemi
graciously resigned from the Council when it was discovered that one too many
representatives had been elected from her Division.) Professor Martha Butterfield
nominated John Mies to serve on the Committee. Professors Jim Stroud and Greg O'Dea moved
and seconded that the nominations be closed, and Professor Mies was elected unanimously.
Professor Prevost then indicated that two students, John Kelly and Katherine Baker, had
been recommended by Dean Charles Renneisen for the Student Conduct Board. Professors John
and Margaret Trimpey moved and seconded that the students be appointed to the Board, and
the motion passed unanimously. Professor Gene Schlereth commented that two members of the
Standards Committee were needed on the Curriculum Committee. This would bring the total
number of Curriculum Committee members to nineteen, a number higher than that required by
the Handbook. Professor Prevost indicated that it was acceptable to have more
members than required. Professor Schlereth pointed out that the more members appointed to
the Curriculum Committee, the more difficult it is to get a quorum.

Provost Search Committee

The indefatigable Professor Prevost then addressed the Council in her capacity as Chair
of the Provost Search Committee. She reported that the Committee had received many
excellent applications, and had formed subcommittees to consider them. A first round of
finalists for the position should be announced within a few weeks. Professor Prevost
indicated that the Committee welcomes faculty input. Professor Margaret Trimpey thanked
Professor Prevost for keeping the faculty informed of the Committee's deliberations.

General Education Committee

Gen Ed Committee Chair Betsy Darken presented a spirited address to the Council on the
new Gen Ed proposal. She feels there is a general lack of attention to General Education
on campus; departments, she observed, tend to zero in on what affects them directly rather
than looking at the entire General Education program. She urged Council members to read
the Gen Ed "yellow book" carefully and to persuade their colleagues to read and
discuss the proposal. She suggested that the faculty consider the proposal from two
different perspectives. First, is the proposal academically sound? Will it produce the
type of graduates we want at UTC? Second, is it feasible to implement this proposal? She
hopes the faculty will aim high, will push the boundaries of what seems feasible in order
to effect what is best for our students. She also noted that there is a widespread
perception that research is more likely to be rewarded than teaching. It will take time
away from research to develop new courses, to grade more writing assignments, etc. Yet the
faculty at large--and each individual faculty member--must decide how much teaching should
be valued at UTC. Professor Darken also noted in passing that there are two typos in need
of correction in the Gen Ed yellow book: On page 7, under No. 3, the "and"
should be deleted after the phrase beginning "complete Writing Center assignments. .
., " and a period should be substituted for the semicolon. On page 22, top paragraph,
"a freshman composition course" should read "no freshman composition
course."

Professor Darken continued by relaying that her Committee members have been keeping
their ears to the ground for news of Gen Ed proposal concerns, and have had their ears
"yanked" on several occasions. The Committee has therefore recommended that the
Council postpone the intended vote on the Gen Ed proposal so that the Committee can
conduct an impact study for the proposal. Such a study would involve extensive input from
faculty and administration. President Ezell moved on behalf of the Executive Committee
that the Gen Ed Committee conduct an impact study and report back to the Council before
the end of the semester. Professor Stroud asked what would be involved with an impact
study. Professor Darken said the Committee would consider practicalities, do some fine
tuning, most likely make some changes. Professor Jim Hiestand suggested that the study
might consider the impact of the proposed 4-hour English courses. Professor John Trimpey
said that the challengeability of these courses might be considered. Professor Marvin
Ernst mentioned the problem of transferability. He also asked if a draft of the final
document could be provided before a final proposal is considered. Professor Darken stated
that she would be glad to provide an interim report. Professor Fritz Efaw asked if the
Committee could go to the administration and say "We need more money." Professor
Darken has been informed that the Committee may do so. Professor Stroud suggested we not
limit our thinking to what is financially feasible but should concentrate on academic
matters. Professor Darken noted that there are some potential problems with the proposal
that are academic in nature. Professor Martha Butterfield commented that there would be a
span of time between adoption and implementation that would allow for consideration of
implementation issues. Professor Stroud called the question on the motion for the Gen Ed
Committee to conduct an impact study and provide a revised proposal to the Council before
the end of the semester. The call for the question passed, and the motion passed
unanimously.

Professor Darken then asked the Council for feedback on the present proposal. Professor
Wallace asked whether anything in the proposal needed to be implemented right away. In
response to an inquiry from Professor Darken, Provost Summerlin indicated that a Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) accreditation team is due in the Fall of 2000.
Professor Felicia Sturzer commended the Committee on its philosophy statement and on its
efforts to involve the faculty in the development of the Gen Ed document. She commented
that the document reads as if each course will be required to have each student give four
oral reports. Is this realistic? Professor Darken responded that what was intended was for
each student to give at least four oral reports during the course of the baccalaureate
education, and that this point would be clarified. Professor Ralph Anderson reported that
his department, school, and college has had discussions on the Gen Ed document. He
expressed the hope that faculty members outside of the social sciences would be able to
develop courses for Category C. He also noted that Category G was more far reaching than
Category E, and provided more opportunities for innovative courses to be developed outside
as well as within Arts and Sciences. He suggested that while SACS has asked for more
emphasis on oral communication at UTC, it may be that this requirement may be met within
various courses outside the English department. Further, because many of our students are
already familiar with basic computer skills, we may not need to include computer skills in
a particular, required course. Professor Darken responded that it was the intent of the
Committee to expand Category C to include social science applications, and that it was
hoped that the spirit of Category G would infuse the entire proposed Gen Ed curriculum.
She pointed out that not all departments have oral communication courses, and that most
professors don't teach these skills. There are those in the English department, however,
that feel that their department is not the place to teach oral communication. She also
stated that it is a documented fact that our students tend not to be sufficiently computer
literate. Professor Marvin Ernst suggested that rather than having oral communication
taught in the English department, courses across the campus could be designated with
"O" for emphasis on oral skills and "W" for emphasis on writing, and
advisors could advise students accordingly. He asked the Committee to consider this
possibility.

Professor Stroud reinforced Professor Sturzer's congratulations for the Committee, and
said he thought the proposal was on the side of the angels. He is concerned, however,
about the writing requirements. Some departments require less writing not because they are
more interested in doing research, but because communication skills other than prose
writing are emphasized (as in the Music Department, for example). He stressed that he was
concerned not that writing is required, but that the proposed proportion of writing may be
too high for some departments. Professor Efaw wanted to know just how much computer
literacy would required of students. Auto mechanics, he offered metaphorically, can
involve anything from changing the oil to rebuilding an engine. How much should students
know about the way computers work? Professor Darken answered that she didn't have a clear
definition of computer literacy for UTC students, but that she would hold the Computer
Science Department hostage until they provided one. Two Council members suggested
simultaneously that computer scientists may not be the best people to provide such a
definition. Amused, Professor Darken said that a computer scientist of her acquaintance,
in the course of teaching skills to colleagues, would often find it necessary to say
something like "Oh--you don't want to know how things work; you just want to get from
point A to point B." Several Council members conceded that how to get from point A to
point B pretty much covers what they want to know about computers. Professor Stroud added
that he didn't want to know how his car worked, either. Coming to the defense of computer
scientists, Professor Joe Dumas explained that if learning to drive a car were like
learning computer skills, drivers would have to relearn how to drive and relearn the roads
virtually every year. Because the field of computer technology is changing at such a rapid
rate, it is necessary to learn some basic principles of computer literacy that will remain
relatively steadfast in the face of change. Professor Wallace concurred, suggesting that
students need to be familiar with philosophical aspects of computer science, and not just
how to key punch.

Professor Gene Schlereth agreed with Professor Stroud that the writing requirement may
be excessive for some departments. What he feels most competent to teach is the syntax of
mathematical equations, not the grammar of English prose. He fears that students might
become proficient at writing about how they feel about solving math equations,
without being able to actually do them. Professor Darken offered that when she has
students write about math, she asks them not about their feelings but to explain how they
arrived at their results. Moving back to the issue of oral skills, Professor Dumas asked
the following: If the English department is not the place to teach oral communication, and
other departments are not the place, where is the place? Professor Margaret Trimpey
reported that there is extensive material available on teaching oral communication skills.
Professor Butterfield suggested that summer institutes could provide instruction in the
area. Professor Sturzer asked how long the proposed summer institutes would last.
Professor Darken speculated that they would last a few weeks. Professor Efaw reiterated
his concern about funding. Have we concrete assurances from the Provost and Chancellor
that the program will be funded if approved? Chancellor Stacy indicated that there is a
conceptual commitment to find funding for whatever program we approve. Professor Boris
Belinsky indicated that he had one simple question: Why does this proposal have to be
completed by the end of the semester? President Ezell stated that that deadline was
recommended because the approval process by our full faculty, officials in Knoxville and
the Board of Trustees could take a considerable span of time. Professor Belinsky then
asked when the interim report would be provided. Professor Darken was unable to commit to
a specific date, but felt that it would be provided relatively soon. She invited
departments to hold meetings with Gen Ed Committee members (as the Music Department plans
to do) or to provide written responses to the proposed document (as the Library has). In
response to some expressed confusion, President Ezell clarified that the Council will vote
on a completed Gen Ed proposal and impact study before the end of the semester.

Administrative Reports

Chancellor's Report

Chancellor Stacy indicated that he enjoyed hearing the faculty discuss academic
matters, and hopes that the faculty will develop the most academically challenging Gen Ed
program possible. He asked the faculty to suspend belief about UTC's current financial
situation when developing or considering the proposal; grants can be sought both within
and beyond the Chattanooga area to fund the approved program. (He mused that if, say,
$300,000 were needed to implement the program, this is an amount that Vice Chancellor
Vince Pellegrino could earn by sundown.) If necessary, the Chancellor continued, we will
simply get Vice Chancellor George Ross in a corner and tell him "You've got to pay
for this." The emphasis in our deliberations on Gen Ed, the Chancellor suggested,
should be on what we want to do and be. We should not postpone any more than is necessary
because the task at hand is difficult; when we decide what we should do, we should do it.
He agreed that we need more attention to computer literacy and communication on the
campus. He has asked Acting Dean Greg Sedrick to chair a faculty committee to look at
technological needs. The Chancellor, along with Vice Chancellor Ross, Provost Summerlin
and Vice Chancellor Pellegrino, have also pledged $150,000 for a "technology
innovation fund" to meet technological needs of individual faculty members.
(Proposals of a few hundred up to several thousand dollars could be considered by some
current campus committee or by a new committee.) The Chancellor indicated he was concerned
as well about shelving for books in the library and about the need for new carpeting in
the library. He has also learned, in walking around campus and talking to students, that
the UTC band has needed new uniforms for some time. He relayed that when UT President Joe
Johnson asked the Chancellor's wife Sue if anything was worrying the Chancellor, Sue Stacy
answered that the Chancellor was concerned about technological needs, carpeting needs, and
band uniforms. Daunted by the prospect of technological needs, the President asked Mrs.
Stacy how much a band uniform costs. As a result of the conversation, UTC was granted
$60,000 from a UT alumni fund for new band uniforms. President Johnson told the Chancellor
that Mrs. Stacy had "solicited him," and the Chancellor is now working hard to
get his wife a dinner date with a carpet manufacturer. The Chancellor concluded his
remarks by observing that UTC has terrific academic prestige around the country.
Especially now in these financially difficult times, it is important that we treat UTC and
one another with care and concern, and with the respect afforded us by peer institutions.

President Ezell asked for questions and comments about Chancellor Stacy's remarks.
Professor Hiestand noted observantly that the Chancellor had been carrying around a red
folder. He suggested that the University's financial situation might improve if the
Chancellor switched to a black folder. The Chancellor seemed amenable to this helpful
financial tip.

Provost's Report

Acting Provost Tim Summerlin reported that enrollment had reached 8548, a 3%
improvement over last year. He then responded to the Council's request for a feasibility
study of an Outreach University program. The Provost stated that the purpose of Outreach
University is to reach out to more students by providing more flexible formats. An
excellent Task Force has been appointed to work on the program, and has been joined by
representatives from five regional community colleges. Four committees of the Task Force
were formed to study curricular matters, delivery systems, services, and
communication/marketing respectively. Presently available curricular options were found in
UTC's Human Services Management department, which includes degrees in Allied Health
Management and Human Services Administration. It was anticipated that these programs would
appeal to a large audience, and especially to those who hold Applied Associate degrees.
Last May a questionnaire was sent to four community colleges asking students if they would
be interested in these programs if offered at times other than 8:00 AM through 3:00 PM.
(Assistant Provost Deborah Arfken was instrumental in developing this questionnaire.)
There were 664 responses. Thirty-four per cent of respondents indicated an interest in
Allied Health management, 23% in Work Force Management, and 16% in Human Services. The
core course Human Services 201 has been offered at nontraditional times last summer and
this Fall, and there has been less response than the Task Force had hoped for. Yet the
general response is that the Outreach University program is excellent, and this program,
like most University programs, will take time to develop. Down the road, we may use the
campus governance process to determine that another kind of baccalaureate program would
best serve regional needs. Yet the commitment to serve nontraditional students is
something the Administration plans to go forward with. The Provost added that we have also
provided distance education in Criminal Justice at Roane State Community College, and are
committed to offering courses in Psychology for Cleveland State Community College. There
is also regional interest in Industrial Engineering Management.

Provost Summerlin believes it is important to our general mission and to enrollment
management in particular to continue with this program, to do everything we can to link
our capabilities to community needs and thereby enable under served and nontraditional
students to get degrees. (While the impact of this year's telephone blitz on enrollment
has not been determined definitively, there is momentum for creativity in getting students
registered.) The Provost concluded by saying that more coherence is needed in Outreach
University, and that Associate Provost Jane Harbaugh has agreed to shepherd Outreach
University's collective efforts. She will profit from the cooperation and aid of
Admissions, Financial Aid, faculty, etc.

The hour was late, but President Ezell noted that Professor Butterfield had had her
hand up for some time. Professor Butterfield responded that she actually just had her
elbow propped up on the table. But since she had been given the floor, she suggested that
a motion might be in order concerning how the Council wishes to proceed with Outreach
University. At the Council's bidding, President Ezell indicated that the Executive
Committee would prepare a motion concerning Outreach University to be presented at the
Council's next meeting.

President Ezell announced that he had made an executive decision to finish this year's
Council meetings by 5:00 PM whenever possible, and asked Associate Vice Chancellor Richard
Brown if he would present his report on construction at the next Council meeting. The
Associate Vice Chancellor graciously agreed, and President Ezell promised to place the
report on construction first on our next meeting's agenda.

Announcements and Adjournment

Dean Charles Renneisen announced that there were plans for an extension of the
University Center in the direction of Maclellan Gym. The funding for the construction will
not involve tax dollars; there will be a student referendum on September 15 and 16 on
raising student service fees by $8.00 to fund this project. Vice Chancellor Pellegrino
noted that the October 2nd Council meeting had accidentally been scheduled during Rosh
Hashanah. President Ezell promised to reschedule that meeting, and will announce the
change at the next Council meeting. The President adjourned the meeting at 5:03 PM.